Skull and Bones 1

What "sensationalism" you're
kidding about ? These are facts (AGAIN) and they fit very well
just in the framework RS gave us!

Empowered thinking, Ethic and Spiritual thought
were given as tools by Steiner to see into the current events
of our time. We merely have to exercise our slumbering faculties.
We merely have to continue to observe dysfunction, unconscious
denial and deception either in the facts of "Heavens Gate"
or Ahriman's church. Either in distortions of Michael Jackson
or John Nash.

Then, we have to be able to look at the Owellian
predicament that the U.S. brought to the 21st century world,
through retarded, unconscious retro thinking that learned nothing,
and saw nothing of the Immense landing of the Michael School
in the lap of humanity in the 20th century. They witnessed the
nightmare but not the dawning vision of how gods think in the
Imagination and Imago of Man.

To measure the impact of the Saturn, Sun,
Moon, Earth Science contributions to the Christ I Am and Earth,
is to measure something greater than Joan of Arc preserving France
and the Languge and culture of France. This was not merely an
affair of one Archangel, but all, globally, the global family
and community. The evolution of the solar system and the birth
of a New Sun from the I Am impact of Golgotha for the Earth.

In Steiner we are dealing with the Core, the
Central core of the Immortality of the human I that the whole
world desires to understand. And since so many fail to understand
destinies image, Barabbas was the denial and we have chosen denial
over reality at every juncture. That is why the recent history
of the entrance of Spiritual Science into humanity must not become
a distortion of denial. Having Spiritualized Thinking plopped
down in the middle of Germany has had mighty and reverberating,
as well as disturbing effects through every level and layer of
cultural life. It is a fact that suddenly the Spiritual World
and Earthly history have collided and the collision was registered
through the great WARS and the Nuclear bomb all the way to biological
warfare and Star stealing cloning.

Finding the threads where visible history
and invisible history have collided or where humanity sought
to touch Light in the Nuclear bomb and believe this light, because
it could be touched, and it could touch you, to death, was no
different than the disciples who were stunned that the Master
of Matter, etheric and Devachan chemical ethers could arise solid,
unharmed before their eyes, and speak warmly to them; yet not
act like some zombie with no control over their skeleton. This
is more than Mortal business. This divides P.S. and Diana between
New AGE vague dreams and dialectical materialism, all suffering
from lack of Spiritualized and Empowered Thinking.

For prophecy and for Christ, preserving the
Skeleton was conquering the very, photo, X-ray Negative Imagination
of Man. Death as the skeleton that carried the model of the Phantom,
and the skeleton that rises as the image of death, on poison
bottles and the Skull and Bones club... leads us to Ahriman's
camp of death. Understanding how the skeletal framework of the
Zodiac, as the skeleton of man, was not to be broken, meant,
Christ - Master of the Atomic Table, would not walk with a limp,
however his palms and feet would still have the higher cosmic
design code..

To understand the stigmatic design codes,
as a framework of the wounds of spear, hands, feet and head..
reveals an inner educational story of how humanity approaches
its higher education and conquers Death all the way down to the
bones. Why do we pin butterflies to cork boards? They are displayed,
mounted trophies of imprisoned Devachan Light.

The Skull and Bones club says more than Dottie
has given thought to. It indicates clearly brotherhoods behind
the Political life of our times and the Priests of the Church
of the Unrisen Light acting to preserve fallen intellect, like
Peter's. Each step of the way we have to build our own cognition
by dipping into the source material, dipping our sop of bread
into the same sop, or Grail Wisdom, or stream of Intelligence,
where the gods wisdom, given to Man, fell from the sky into the
Germanic structure of language and thought with the new breath
of the Holy Ghost.

"Luke next proceeds with his narrative
in the following terms:

"And as they thus spake,
Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them,
Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.23 But they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And He said unto them, Why
are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see;
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And when He had thus spoken,
He showed them His hands and His feet."24 It is to this
act, by which the Lord showed Himself after His resurrection,
that John is also understood to refer when he discourses as follows:
"Then, when it was late on the first day of the week, and
when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for
fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith
unto them, Peace be unto you.

And when He had so said, He
showed unto them His hands and His side."25 Thus, too, we
may connect with these words of John certain matters which Luke
reports, but which John Himself omits. For Luke continues in
these terms: "And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they
gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And
when He had eaten before them, He took what remained,26 and gave
it unto them."27

Again, a passage which Luke omits, but which
John presents, may next be connected with these words. It is
to the following effect:

"Then were the disciples
glad when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace
be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

And when He had said this,
He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."28 Once
more, we may attach to the above section another which John has
left out, but which Luke inserts. It runs thus: "And He
said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while
I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the
Psalms, concerning me.

Bradford concludes;

Indeed we have seen the only begotten Ahrimanic
Light and have been convinced because Science has shown us that
it is real, destructive, Omniscient and of such global might
that man must fear it and the poison that it secretes. That only
fools do not bow down to worship it and the power it represents
and only fools can't see that with this light, hundreds of skeletons
can be fried and x-rayed onto Walls as in Hiroshima. So what
is the pettiness of one Human I AM in relation to this OMniscient
Power? Believe in it, not the confused ethics of simple Jesus.
And Steiner says, bite me, I'll show you the gods your rotten
lying renegade servant of Man.

But those who have taken up the scent of the
Holy Ghost have come to the new wafting breath of the Michael
School with open hearts and minds. Therefore can they learn to
see to have cognition and determine in themselves how to empower
thought that penetrates reality. Therefore Andrea and those on
this list are to be applauded in their efforts and disagreed
with as discernment beckons. For we are sharing in the Extended
World of the Logos and the Gods and must learn to find our way
in the added dimension of Holy Ghost thinking.

The Skull and Bones club says more than
Dottie has given thought to. It indicates clearly brotherhoods
behind the Political life of our times and the Priests of the
Church of the Unrisen Light acting to preserve fallen intellect,
like Peter's.

And you think I have not seen this because
I agree not with your assumptions of the whole 9/11 scheme? Please
Bradford, just because one does not agree nor come to the same
conclusions does not mean they have not thought thoroughly through
these type of things.

The idea that because I do not agree means
I do not see the underworkings of the spiritual worlds. I do
nothing but this moment in and moment out and still try to enthusiastically
embrace my life and vision for it. No easy task as you know when
the mind is consumed by other worldly things.

Bradford:

Each step of the way we have to build our
own cognition by dipping into the source material, dipping our
sop of bread into the same sop, or Grail Wisdom, or stream of
Intelligence, where the gods wisdom, given to Man, fell from
the sky into the Germanic structure of language and thought with
the new breath of the Holy Ghost.

Pontificating because we do not see it the
same as you. No matter of manipulation yanks my chain. My goal
is freedom, with a capitol F', not jump on the bandwagon of those
who share my antipathies and sympathies and can't we all just
get along.

Bradford:

"Luke next proceeds with his narrative
in the following terms:

"And as they thus
spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto
them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.23 But they were
terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Now, stepping into the real thick manipulation
points: you must be afraid, that's why you can't see what I can
but that is okay I am going to help you see it my way'. Can't
go there with you my friend. My need for Freedom is not being
met by following others down the rabbit hole of a one way thinking
on this subject. Just because it is a possibility in the world
does not make it so.

Please Bradford, just because one does
not agree nor come to the same conclusions does not mean they
have not thought thoroughly through these type of things.

The idea that because I do not agree means
I do not see the underworkings of the spiritual worlds.

Pontificating because we do not see it
the same as you.

Now, stepping into the real thick manipulation
points: you must be afraid, that's why you can't see what I can
but that is okay I am going to help you see it my way'.

Hey Dottie, ever notice this is exactly how
they talk to the critics? We aren't "spiritual," we
don't "see reality" the way anthroposophists do. Oh,
perhaps we just haven't read all the material they have helpfully
provided. Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We must be "afraid"
(or if we're not, we should be).

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in this
understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the critics
and those who are conditioned to a certain world view want to
see only what appeals to their already made views.

Now, life experiences have brought us to our
world views. And that is why Dr. Steiners book POF is so important.
It asks us to move past our conditioning to a sense free thinking,
willing and feeling. And achieving this is freedom. And this
is my goal for my self, my desire. So I can't get caught up in
what you or Bradford or so and so thinks not even can I get caught
up in what I think until I have vetted it thoroughly.

My experience of the just about the whole
world is that we are aligned with our own personal world view.
I want something more. I want truth.

So, the critics look to see what speaks to
their own personal experiences and negate the rest. Its not a
matter of really checking out all the facts and then laying them
on the table to see what is really going on in regards to Dr.
Steiners work. No, you have had a specific experience and you
look for that which agrees with your specific insights that appeal
to that experience in order to make sense of it. But then there
is another side to the story and then there is the truth.

For me, when you are beholden to a certain
thing because of your personal experiences you do the truth a
disservice. But then again maybe not many people are looking
for the truth of the matter as it exists outside themselves.
Maybe they are. Left, right or center does not matter it is a
point of view, your own. Don't want my own point of view according
to the Matrix, I want the truth of that which exists outside
all the hooks society has thrown up for us. It's the act of freeing
ones mind that appeals to me but not at the expense of others.

Diana:

We aren't "spiritual," we don't
"see reality" the way anthroposophists do.

Diana, it can not
be helped that most of your group aligns itself with atheism,
humanism and so forth. It seems to be the running theme over
there. For me it is a so what until it becomes that you folks
think you know better than those who have been studying this
man for years. Your group negates the experiences because they
do not believe in them. Your group negates the possibility that
Dr. Steiner was speaking of a pre human time according to certain
understandings and negates the idea that he said we are moving
away from blood ties and so forth. You pick out one sentence,
maybe sixteen for Peter, and make the rest of his works to mean
such and such when in truth his works mean the opposite of what
you state. But you don't know that because you see what you want
to see and negate the rest. (I am not specifically speaking about
you when I say you, I am speaking in general)

Diana

Oh, perhaps we just haven't read all the
material they have helpfully provided.

No, its not that. You have read it from your
own personal world view Diana. As have many of Steiner students.
I found Dr. Steiners work to be astoundingly in sync with mine.
You have not. It doesn't matter how much material you read, this
is not to your personal liking nor agreement. And for this you
are uable to read it for what it is: spiritual works that work
past the human body and blood lines. He was speaking on all consciousnesses
and how they moved in mankind from even before the human body.
But you do not see it that way and it is not even credible for
you. Okay. But again, like I said to Bradford and others that
does not make you right. And it doesn't make you right either.
Just because some can say the same thing you ascribe to Dr. Steiner
does not make it his own teachings. His own teachings speak to
the opposite of what you, Peter S and other like minded individuals
have come to. And as I said to Andrea, that is fine, but that
does not make it true. Where are your sympathies and antipathies
getting in the way of ascertaining to a sense free thinking.

Diana:

Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We
must be "afraid" (or if we're not, we should be).

Yes, some can ascribe this to you and it doesn't
make it true. I am one looking for truth and I believe that in
this case of Dr. Steiners work being racist and anti-semitic
and so forth misses wide of the mark. And if I am worth my salt
it must not be that I find this to be true because of my afinity
for Dr. Steiner. I work too hard to be taken out that easily.
You can hold onto what you wish and I can't trust your thoughts
on this because they are too tied to your personal minds experiences
of what a thing means. And I feel the same way for any of my
friends here on list and elsewhere who feel tied to a certain
thing from an emotional hot or cold level.

Do you think your free in your thoughts on
this subject of Dr. Steiner?

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in
this understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the
critics and those who are conditioned to a certain world view
want to see only what appeals to their already made views.

No, I don't think you DO see the whole. You
don't seem to hear it when critics explain about the many
years in some cases that they/we looked at things with a
positive orientation toward anthroposophy. I did not come to
anthroposophy with an "already made" view, I had never
heard of it before and I was totally receptive to studying
it. This part, you don't seem to hear.

Now, life experiences have brought us to
our world views.

Yes, Dottie, but therefore, on what basis
can you conclude that your views of Dr. Steiner's are the correct
ones? If you had had my life experiences, do you think you would
see Steiner's views more negatively?

Diana, it can not be helped that most of
your group aligns itself with atheism, humanism and so forth.

Dottie, I don't know who you mean by "my
group." However, whether you mean people posting on the
Waldorf critics mailing list, or you mean PLANS, with which I
am not presently allied, and there are various other "groups"
as well, worldwide, working on or discussing these issues, but
applied to any one of them, your statement is incorrect. It is
not the case that most of the people I know who have critical
things to say about Waldorf or anthroposophy are atheists, or
humanists. The opposite is the case. More of them hold some sort
of spiritual worldview than not.

you folks think you know better than those
who have been studying this man for years.

Well, in fact there is a growing number of
people critical of Steiner who have been studying him for years,
myself included.

Your group negates the experiences because
they do not believe in them.

No (though again there is really no "my
group"). There are people for whom the premises of anthroposophy
are preposterous or offensive because they are atheists, or because
they are Christians, or because they are Jewish, or because they
are pagan. There are others to whom many of the fundamentals
of anthroposophy are very appealing but whose experiences with
anthroposophic projects such as Waldorf schools soured them on
anthroposophy. For me personally, I generally judge any dogma
or ideology by the results I can see. I saw a lot of inexcusable
things, with people spouting, "Oh, you just don't understand
Steiner."

Your group negates the experiences because
they do not believe in them. Your group negates the possibility
that Dr. Steiner was speaking of a pre human time according to
certain understandings and negates the idea that he said we are
moving away from blood ties and so forth.

I don't negate any of those things, personally.

You have read it from your own personal
world view Diana.

Well, that's true, but it gets us nowhere,
since you, of course, read it from your own personal world view,
too. Again, I read Steiner very sympathetically for several years.

Diana:

Oh, we've read it and we don't agree? We
must be "afraid" (or if we're not, we should be).

Yes, some can ascribe this to you and it
doesn't make it true.

I think almost always, Dottie, when someone
jeers at you that you must be afraid, they are being a bully
and hoping to make you afraid.

Do you think your free in your thoughts
on this subject of Dr. Steiner?

No, certainly not. I'm not really sure about
the idea of being "free" in thought at all. I generally
suspect it is a self-delusion. ("Sense-free" thinking,
in particular, strikes me as a very dangerous trap. These things
are ideologies. There's no free lunch.)

I wouldn't really know if there are in fact
individuals who are "free in thought." If there are,
I sincerely doubt they spend much time exhorting others to be
free in thought. Perhaps I am not explaining that very well,
but I am virtually certain that, in practice, those two things
are usually incompatible.

Then said Jesus to them
again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you.

"Then said Jesus to
them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even
so
send I you.

And when He had said this,
He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

Dear Harvey or Danny - Anyone;

Given the stunning embodiment of a thing,
a physical form, the lungs and air, filled with Holy Ghost substance,
so that by breath, I mean the image of what exactly this figure
was, was there. Condensed, harmonically gathered from the grand
cosmic imagination, Master of any atomic table, but filled, not
with air that is normal air, but 'air freshener' that tingled
right down to the karma of the disciples and allowed them a pre-taste
of the Tongues of flame as Empowered, Spiritualized thinking,
replacing Archangelic language divisions. What filled the room
when the Resurrected One breathed out within the space of the
room?

Surely we can understand the Science of the
Christ contrasted against the shuddering show of nuclear blast.
Now there stood before the disciples, to touch, and to hold and
yet what was really the flowing substance of this gathering of
matter before their eyes? Archangel, Exusai and Thrones... Father
-Son and Holy Ghost... Father of matter, movement of the soul
and planets - language of thought as Archangelic Holy Ghost community
of Ideas seen in the thoughts of others and Karma of the Individual
Angels in the disciples, feeling the full impact of the New Breath
from the height of the Thrones. Creation had new air in its sails,
(" Lots of Love in that Room" -) Gee, He can come to
my party and blow in all the balloons. Let Him perform mouth
to mouth on poor Peter S. Dialectical Materialism would shrivel
like a dried moth.

And arrives for us now, in our time, this
condensed dose of all the Love that the Michael School could
condense into - not a League of Nations allah Woodrow Wilson,
but a Thinking Community, a U.N. of the Holy Ghost. A higher
bridge to unite Archangelic communities of humanity, not alienate
them and enslave them or cleanse them from the face of the earth
as Monsters acting as demonic Archangels, loading trains with
bodies as the final betrayal of Archangels crucifixion in the
Wills of Men.

Because once a human being had become a god,
the demons could engineer a nation as infected will to become
demon mimics.

If this thinking trickle of Spiritual Science
could so illuminate one human being, Steiner, what might it do
if the trickle became a flood of Conscious Living Brotherhood?
What an inrush of Life would arise. And this dear fellows, are
the ropes we are tangled in and this is no silly retarded movie,
"A Mighty Wind".. it mocks what a Mighty Wind is here.

Dear Diana, there is a big difference in
this understanding. See, I DO look to see the whole. I get the
critics and those who are conditioned to a certain world view
want to see only what appeals to their already made views.

Diana:

No, I don't think you DO see the whole.

Hey Diana, I don't know why the DO is capatalized
in the sentence. I did not do that to make a point. So, my point
as far as I am trying to express is that I feel the critics only
look at certain points that look to their own understandings.
And that seems self evident to me when reading your words and
that of the critics. It seems to me that you do not add 1 + 1
and get two. You seem to add 1+1 and get 1.

So, not meaning to say I see the whole and
you do not. More meaning I am open to both sides and it does
not seem to me that you or the critics do this. It feels conditioned
by your own personal life views versus a contemplation of the
whole enchilada.

Diana:

You don't seem to hear it when critics
explain about the many years in some cases that they/we
looked at things with a positive orientation toward anthroposophy.

No, I do hear it. I have no issue with the
critics and their personal experiences of a thing. Where I do
take issue is where they decide to start discerning on a thing
they are not interested in: spiritual understandings of our every
day lives and how it impacts today tomorrow and yesteryear.

We are already aware that many in this group
believe the critics have some very valid points. Dr. Steiner
as a racist is not one of them.

Diana:

I did not come to anthroposophy with an
"already made" view, I had never heard of it before
and I was totally receptive to studying it. This part,
you don't seem to hear.

Diana, I am taking the heat out of this because
I think we started off on the wrong footing with my DO capitalized.
Not intentional but a pretty good thing for me to look at inside
to see if somehow that is what I believe in those exact terms.

Anywho, it seems to me that you felt snookered
as to not having the bigger picture. And it does seem to me that
some of these schools are not giving the bigger picture. And
I think it is important.

As far as taking it further and reading Dr.
Steiner to be racist in his views I feel very strongly that you
are only taking in what you want to read and not the intent of
his works. It's kind of like the post that started this whole
thing. Somehow there is all this other evidence but only the
part that applies to their specific world view seems to be operating
or at least so it seems to me. And that is how I view your ongoing
arguments about Dr. Steiner being a racist.

Diana:

Yes, Dottie, but therefore, on what basis
can you conclude that your views of Dr. Steiner's are the correct
ones?

I am not saying Dr. Steiners views are the
correct ones. What I have been able to see is that by getting
away from blood and family and national ties my love for people
and my self has increased. I have found that through contemplation
of where a thought comes from I am able to begin realizing how
conditioned my thoughts were and how 'in the matrix' I really
am and was by the happenings of others and their own sympathies
and antipathies.

Dr. Steiners work has helped me to stand firm
in the idea that we must see beyond borders and blood ties. We
must see past all that binds us to any one group of people. These
are the exact opposites of what Staudenamier, you and the critics
are saying. So, if I have to wonder well why is it that I can
sense this growth towards more inclusivity through my contemplation
of Dr. Steiners work, and this other small group that feels decieved
by some teachers at a Waldorf school feel differently. Can it
be true that Dr. Steiners work is racist I have to ask my self.
And then I read more and more and realize that his work does
indeed speak to the opposite of a few phrases taken out of a
lecture and much of its context to say 'yes he is a racist'.
So, to only look at the one paragraph and negate all that comes
with it is telling not even a quarter of the story Diana.

Diana:

If you had had my life experiences, do
you think you would see Steiner's views more negatively?

Maybe I don't know. I don't know what your
lifes experiences were other than something to do with having
it pushed down your throat a bit. That has not happened to me.
I went to church because Mom had me and my little sisters walk
together on Sundays and we bought candy.

I never had it pushed on me and actually used
to wonder for most of my life if there was a God and what was
God and how can he get me what I want and why is he holding me
back and so forth. But I always knew there was a Christ. I was
seven when I asked Jesus in my life and I cried my heart out.
And I didn't even know why. Someone said 'hey wanna accept Jesus
into your life' and I said 'okay'. I do not even think I knew
what that was at the time I was so unthinking and just loving.
But man I cried a river and everyone was looking at me as to
what was wrong with me. And they left the room and I could not
stop crying. Don't think Mom ever knew this.

So, my trip was always questioning if there
was one and there never were any conversations with others about
Jesus or whathave you.

I think we both have a similar need not to
be fooled and we do not like others to tell us what to do nor
to take our choice away. And I can respect that. That is why
when I saw the DO capitalized I was like 'uhoh this is not going
to be a pleasent response:) for if it was me reading those words
directed at me I would probably respond very similar as you did.

I think if I had yours or Sharons experiences
I would not be too high on Waldorf. But in who I am with my personal
life experiences I do not know if I would have gone where you
two have with reading him to be racist. But then again I do not
know how old you are. People think these things do not matter
but I do. With time comes more reflection and sometimes we can
see where our experiences yank our chains so to speak. And then
sometimes we can't and just believe what we think is true and
not neccessarily because it is but because we think it to be
so.

Diana:

Dottie, I don't know who you mean by "my
group."

Yeah, we kind of react the same way to our
freedoms being taken away in a sense. It's funny now reading
you after having taken this matrix workshop and seeing the things
that would set me off naturally.

Looking at that you primarily come from the
critics group that I look and that is how we met that I look
at you from a certain point of departure.

Diana:

However, whether you mean people posting
on the Waldorf critics mailing list, or you mean PLANS, with
which I am not presently allied, and there are various other
"groups" as well, worldwide, working on or discussing
these issues, but applied to any one of them, your statement
is incorrect.

I agree with you one hundred percent. I will
not make the mistake again. Hopefully:) and don't mind being
called on it.

Diana:

Well, in fact there is a growing number
of people critical of Steiner who have been studying him for
years, myself included.

That feels like a false statement Diana. Are
you saying you still study Steiner or were actively studying
him recently and for your own personal growth and came to disagree
with him. Or did you study because you put your child in a Waldorf
school and that was part of the program?

People who have been studying him for years
and criticize him is kind of far fetched in my thought. Studying
to find something wrong is not studying Diana. You either get
him or you don't want to have anything to do with him and his
far out thoughts. Not really a case of slowly finding out he
is a racist or whathave you. I'd find that really hard to believe
as his works speak to the opposite of this.

Diana:

No (though again there is really no "my
group").

Got it.

Diana:

There are people for whom the premises
of anthroposophy are preposterous or offensive because they are
atheists, or because they are Christians, or because they are
Jewish, or because they are pagan.

Offensive I don't know about but preposterous
I can understand. Racist, no Diana. Nazi ideology, no Diana.
Preposterous okay. He is kind of far out to the mainstream and
I can understand why. But not because he is a racist nor that
he was teaching a racist ideology. That is not correct Diana.
Just like it is not correct we shot down 93 because the good
guys were winning.

Diana:

I saw a lot of inexcusable things, with
people spouting, "Oh, you just don't understand Steiner."

What did you see Diana? And how is it different,
better or worse than public schools?

Diana:

No, certainly not. I'm not really sure
about the idea of being "free" in thought at all. I
generally suspect it is a self-delusion. ("Sense-free"
thinking, in particular, strikes me as a very dangerous trap.
These things are ideologies. There's no free lunch.)

Well, I think from how you react on this list
you are looking for freedom of thinking. The point would be to
see what or who your thinking is aligned to or with. And for
me I guess it is real important that I am aware of why I am saying
or thinking or doing the things I am. Is it from someone elses
thought or is it my own. Kind of like in grade school a girl
says 'oh don't talk to her she's mean' and so I dont' talk to
her. I got tired of listening to what other said and then my
reactions of surrendering my self or maybe submitting my self
to that persons idea of what was right and wrong. It kept dawning
on me that others always expected me to do or think or say a
certain thing. And it was always to line up with their way of
thinking. I decided somewhere along the line no matter how much
I loved a person nor how much I admired them I needed to be independant
of their thinking. I needed to know my self.

Diana:

I wouldn't really know if there are in
fact individuals who are "free in thought."

I do not think there are many. Well, at least
I have not met any. I see lots of people, including my self,
that are trying to figure this thing out. We are trying to analize
or contemplate why we think the way we do in our everyday lives.
We try to think on what is driving us so that we can be consciously
aware of why we think the way we think and why we do the things
we do. So, I am not one of them who is free in thought but I
do think it a worthy path to walk.

Diana:

If there are, I sincerely doubt they spend
much time exhorting others to be free in thought.

I don't think they would try to exhort rather
try to inspire others to be aware of looking at why they do the
things they do and think the way they think. And that is what
the heart of Dr. Steiners work is for me. The Christ I always
had and looked to understand but to seperate it from what others
have said is a great task. I was raised to believe that all the
people that did not believe in Christ were going to hell. All
other religions were cults and only those who believe in Christ
were good people. And later on that it was my duty to make people
believe in Christ come hell or high water. So, I had a lot of
undoing to do in my thinking and parting what is real and what
is not and what is important and what is not. And then why do
people do what they do and why do people think the way they do
as well. And I did not want to be like everyone else on the gravey
train to nowhere in my mind.

I trust you Diana, and I know your experiences
with Waldorf were hurtful. It doesn't however make you right
on these other issues regarding race.

There are people for whom the premises
of anthroposophy are preposterous or offensive because they are
atheists, or because they are Christians, or because they are
Jewish, or because they are pagan.

Christians find paganism and atheism preposterous
or offensive, atheists and pagans find Christianity offensive
and so on and so on. But just like neo-Nazis in Sweden sported
black Muslims in their midst united by a hatred of Jews, so are
atheists and Christian fundies united in their hatred against
Anthroposophists.

PLANS has a mission, just like the starship
Enterprise. It spells it out on the website:

PLANS Mission Statement

People for Legal and Nonsectarian
Schools will:

1. Provide parents, teachers,
and school boards with views of Waldorf education from outside
the cult of Rudolf Steiner.

2. Expose the illegality of
public funding for Waldorf school programs in the US.

3. Litigate against schools
violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in
the US.

There is nothing wrong with these three points.
Nothing at all. I commend them. But it's not honest, because
the mission practiced by PLANS involves a lot more than the above,
so I'm recommending at least four more points:

4. Bust the Anthroposophical
Movement by proving it to be a racist cult.

5. Discredit Rudolf Steiner
by any means possible: Racism, sexual magic, quackery, trickery,
dishonesty, sado-masochism, cruelty, plus anything else that
sounds good, and if it doesn't stick, keep repeating it until
it does. Dig through his 6000 lectures and select the most outrageous
sentences, making sure that our target audience does not see
those other sentences of his that put him in a better light.

6. Collect Waldorf horror
stories big and small from all over the world. Tell them over
and over and quote those racist statements as often as possible
in between.

7. Compare Anthroposophy to
extreme right wing racist militant religious movements as often
as possible, for instance by mentioning such movements ever so
often in between criticism of Anthroposophy.